The most important interview on any global affairs issue the Daily Show has ever had happened last night with the appearance of Mustafa Barghouti and Anna Beltzer, both advocates for a nonviolent solution in the Israel Palestine conflict. There are so many great sound bytes in the unedited version that appears on the Daily Show website. Here are my favorites:

• Barghouti says the Palestinians are victims of a system of segregation that is totally unjust. Someone from the audience shouts “Liar!” Neither Barghouti or Baltzer seem thrown off in the slightest, and Barghouti even expresses a wish to sit down with the man and explain his position to him.
• “This severe reaction sometimes reflects a nervousness on the side of people who are afraid of change, and the change is happening, the change is coming. Palestinians are entitled to the same freedom that the Jewish people should have.” Barghouti
• “The controversy around our appearance here shows that people don’t want to hear from nonviolent activists and [yet] people say ‘Where are the Palestinian nonviolent activists?’” Beltzer
• “Palestinians are not only Muslims, they’re also Christians. We have Palestinian Muslims and Christians.” Barghouti
• “I don’t tend to think that the Palestinian issue today is an Arab issue or a Muslim issue, its a human issue.” Barghouti
• “The Israelis will never be free until the Palestinians are also free.” Barghouti
• “There’s nothing defensive about denying Palestinians water. There’s nothing defensive about preventing people from having materials to build their homes. So much of the institutions that I understood to be defensive cannot be justified by security anymore.” Baltzer
• Another man, or possibly the same man as before, shouts while Baltzer is speaking. I think he’s announcing that he’s leaving because something Baltzer said was so offensive to him. Still, neither of the guests are really thrown off.
• “I don’t think the question is should Israel be singled out for criticism. I think the question is should Israel be held to the same standards that every other country has held.” Baltzer
• “You know a lot of people don’t realize how much, first of all, cooperation there is on the ground. That so many Israelis oppose…the settlements, the majority of Israelis oppose the settlements. And that busload after busload of Israeli activists are coming in to stand in solidarity with the Palestinians.” Baltzer
• “I personally believe that the best peace that will last, like in the experience of other countries, is the one between two democracies where a solution is not imposed from one side on the other but it is accepted by both people and I think that is achievable.” Barghouti
• “Remember that Jews lived better in the Arab world than virtually anywhere in the Western world … and the important thing is this shows us a precedent. That these things are not unachievable, that these are not peoples who are somehow fundamentally incompatible.” Baltzer

However, I’m not 100% behind everything that was said. For instance, I have trouble believing that 90% of the Palestinian struggle is nonviolent. Simply because I have no idea what is being included in “the Palestinian struggle”. Is he talking about the struggle of the Palestinian National Authority? Or is he including the PNA, the various resistance groups that have been formed over the years, and the everyday struggles of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories? We could come up with a variety of different statistics based on what we consider part of the struggle. And then of course we can slip into the debate over whether or not stone throwing or property damage can be considered part of nonviolence.

But Barghouti is a politician, and so it only follows he speaks in the language of politicians. However, none of that invalidates what he’s trying to do.

Both of these people are incredibly brave and incredibly necessary to the global struggle to ensure human rights for all. w00t!

The Obama administration has come under a lot of fire from people outside of the neo-conservative political spectrum for continuing many of Bush’s foreign policy initiatives. But recently, the administration cut off funding to Iran Democracy Fund conceived by the Bush administration to distribute money to opposition forces in Iran.

Is this a slap in the face to all those working for human rights inside Iran? The BBC reports that many Iranian activists find this a blessing.

Critics like Iranian dissident and journalist Akbar Ganji have maintained that the program made virtually all Iranian NGOs targets of the hardline government in Iran:

“The US democracy fund was severely counterproductive. None of the human right activists and members of opposition in Iran had any interest in using such funds, but we were all accused by Iran’s government of being American spies because a few groups in America used these funds.”

And

Abdolfattah Soltani is a well-known Iranian human rights lawyer, and spokesman for the Defenders of Human Rights Center, which was founded by the Nobel Peace Prize-winner Shirin Ebadi.

He welcomes the change in policy: “These US funds are going to people who have very little to do with the real struggle for democracy in Iran and our civil society activists never received such funds. The end to this program will have no impact on our activities whatsoever.”

Could this really be a move worth making? I think it is. One of the ways in which the Iranian government holds on to its power is by blaming the US and the UK of undermining Iranian sovereignty. It continues to serve as a plausible, if many times far fetched and deceitful scenario. The current Iranian opposition is made up of many young educated men and women. And like many young people we tell our well meaning elders to back off because we want our achievements to truly be our own. I think that is one of the messages that is coming from the Green Movement in Iran: thanks, but no thanks.

Its about time I brought up the A-Bomb again. The A word that is everybody’s favorite polarizing political talking point: Abortion! If you haven’t already, please review my opinion on this issue.

I was reading an article (and here) on how bans on abortion don’t actually decrease the amount of abortions actually occurring. Based on the statistics in the above shown graph, we can see that there’s still a pretty large number of abortions occurring even when it is illegal.

The article goes on to talk about the dangers of unsafe abortions to women which many pro-Choice are bound to pick up and use as a reason to have legal safe abortions. To me, that’s a pretty weak argument. Its akin to the argument for legalizing drugs so that people won’t incur any danger in attempt to procure them. I’m all for keeping women alive and healthy, but you can’t use that as leverage for gaining support for an act that is essentially a tragedy for all involved.

Josephine Quintavalle of the anti-abortion Comment on Reproductive Ethics in the UK is quoted in the article as saying:

“Abortion – back street or front street – is not the answer. Ensuring women have the means to end their pregnancies is not liberating them – they should be able to make real choices before they fall pregnant in the first place.”

Pro-Choice and pro-Life in the US should be picking this up, but likely won’t. When it comes to mainstream discussions of this topic most people seem to forget that something has to occur before a child is conceived. Pro-Choice gets wrapped in arguments over women’s rights and pro-Life can’t seem to stop themselves from yelling “baby killer!”.

But if this strategy of contraception is going to be embraced by anyone, it will be the pro-Choice. I doubt pro-Life will ever get behind it in significant numbers because it goes against their unrealistic sexual world view. Abstinence is wonderful and totally realistic, but abstinence only is not. Sometimes, it makes me roll my eyes and wonder if the majority of pro-Life don’t really want to save babies, they just want to make sure the women who want them get severely punished.

I invite you all to prove my cynicsm about your respective camps unjustified. Please, tell me what you’re doing to protect women and stop abortions from occurring. You can tell me off too, but please be nice to each other.

Way to go Norwegians!

I need to go on the record as saying that I’m not in favor of Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. There are so many many reasons why I think it was a bad idea. Please enjoy a nice little list of those reasons as said by various news outlets and bloggers.

Martin Indyk of Brookings, though not explicitly condemning it, shows that the award was given for strategic purposes. Which is one hell of a gamble.

“President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize should be seen as an acknowledgment of the promise that his presidency holds for leading the world into a new era of cooperation. Critics who argue that he hasn’t earned it miss the point. The Nobel committee clearly wanted to boost support for Obama’s world view and, judging from the overwhelmingly positive international reaction, they succeeded at least for the moment.”

The Economist on how the award is incredibly premature:

Although the prize may be given in the spirit of encouraging Mr Obama’s government, it might have been better to wait for more solid achievements. With so many good intentions, and so many initiatives scattered around the world (and an immensely busy domestic agenda, including health-care reform and averting economic collapse), Mr Obama appears to be racing around trying everything without yet achieving much…Mr Obama’s aspirations may be laudable, but he has several tough years ahead. The Nobel committee evidently wants to encourage him but it might have been wiser to hold judgment until he has achieved more. In America itself, the decision has already infuriated conservative commentators, ensuring there will be no peace on the home front, at least.

Peter Beinart of The Daily Beast on highlighting the gap between hype and accomplishments:

I like Barack Obama as much as the next liberal, but this is a farce. He’s done nothing to deserve the prize. Sure, he’s given some lovely speeches and launched some initiatives—on Iran, Israeli-Palestinian peace, climate change and nuclear disarmament—that might, if he’s really lucky and really good, make the world a more safe, more just, more peaceful world. But there’s absolutely no way to know if he’ll succeed, and by giving him the Nobel Prize as a kind of “atta boy,” the Nobel Committee is actually just highlighting the gap that conservatives have long highlighted: between Obamamania as global hype and Obama’s actual accomplishments.

And on the damage this has done to the Nobel Commitee and actual peacebuilders on the ground:

The Nobel Prize Committee should be in the business of conferring celebrity on unknown human-rights and peace activists toiling in the most god-forsaken parts of the world; the people who really need the attention (and even the money). It should be in the business of angering powerful tyrants by giving their victims a moment in the sun. Choosing Barack Obama, who practically orbits the sun already, accomplishes the exact opposite of that. Let’s hope Obama eventually deserves this award. And let’s hope the Nobel Committee’s decision meets with such a deafening chorus of chortles and jeers that it never does something this stupid again.

Now here are some of my favorite tweets.

@abuardvark : Based on conversations in Amman there’s not going to be much Arab enthusiasm for Obama peace prize

@dandrezer : New blog post: EXCLUSIVE transcript of internal Nobel Peace Prize deliberations!! http://bit.ly/CY4EW. Must credit Drezner!!

@dandrezer : In move to restore credibility, Nobel committee announces Neil Patrick Harris will host awards presentation.

@AfPakChannel : RT @basseyworld: Mr. President, I’m happy for you & I’m gonna let you finish but Nelson Mandela was the best Peace Prize winner of all time

@FP_Magazine : Seven people who that never won the Nobel Peace Prize, but should have. http://bit.ly/1mCp42

@wonkette : NASA Moon-Bomber Left Hanging On High Five: Just as the President of the United States was accepting the Nobel.. http://bit.ly/1wTzc2

@EugeneMirman : Congratulations Mr. Obama! You won fair and square, even though I’ve been texting Hamas & Isreal requesting peace for weeks.

@anamariecox : YouTube of Nobel announcement…. http://bit.ly/XFmPO (And, uhm, clearly giving it to Obama for being notBush.)

@anamariecox : Update: Nobel Prize awarded not just to those who are not George Bush; must also not be John McCain.

@anamariecox : RT @12minds: While I haven’t fixed your iphone yet, I’ve THOUGHT about it and I hope to in the future. // Now just CLAIM to have fixed it.

For those of you who keep track of my discussions on the Arab-Israeli conflict both in and out of the blogosphere, you’ll note that I tend to bring up famous Israeli author Amos Oz. A lot. A whole lot. And I’m about to do it again.

Prime Minister of Israel Binyamin Netanyahu’s speech to the UN this week was almost like a revival of David Irving’s Holocaust on Trial. Bibi came with an impressive array of valuable historical documents proving that the Holocaust did take place and waving them in front of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s face and recounted his own family’s tragedy during the Holocaust at the hand of the Nazis.

Then came the moment we had all been waiting for, the inevitable Nazi comparison. With all the Hitler allusions our nation has endured with conservatives and their theater of the absurd, you’ll forgive me for having some Hitler fatigue. But when Israel brings up the Fuhrer in the context of the Arab (+ the one non-Arab neighbor) Israeli conflict, the comparison becomes truly profound in a very unexpected way. Its not because Arabs truly resemble the Nazis, its because the Jews as a traumatized society cannot see it any other way. As Oz so wonderfully puts in page 343 of his memoir A Tale of Love And Darkness, the Palestinians and the Jews are the children of a tyrannical parent who do not see each other as fellow victims but as a reflection of their abuser.

“The Europe that abused, humiliated, and oppressed the Arabs by means of imperialism, colonialism, exploitation and repression is the same Europe that oppressed and persecuted the Jews… But when the Arabs look at us, they see not a bunch of half-hysterical survivors but a new offshoot of Europe, with its colonialism, technical superiority, and exploitation, that has cleverly returned to the Middle East—in Zionist guide this time—to exploit, evict, and oppress all over again. And when we look at them, we do not see fellow victims either; we see not brothers in adversity but pogroms-making Cossacks, bloodthirsty anti-Semites, Nazis in disguise, as though our European persecutors have reappeared here in the land of Israel, put keffiyehs on their heads, and grown mustaches, but they are still our old murderers, interested only in slitting Jew’s throats for fun.”

And there you have it my friends, Netanyahu demonstrating Oz’s point exactly and further solidifying my admiration for this author. Additionally, for all you Holocaust history buffs, you may enjoy Gideon Levy’s article on how Netanyahu’s speech actually cheapens the Jewish experience under the Nazis. Click here for a full text of the speech.

Now, who wants to get busy and publish an article on the merits of mutual recognition of loss to peace processes (written by yours truly)? I wanna be internet famous.

“It seems, as one becomes older,
That the past has another pattern, and ceases to be a mere sequence—
Or even development: the latter a partial fallacy
Encouraged by superficial notions of evolution,
Which becomes, in the popular mind, a means of disowning the past.
The moments of happiness—not the sense of well-being,
Fruition, fulfilment, security or affection,
Or even a very good dinner, but the sudden illumination—
We had the experience but missed the meaning,
And approach to the meaning restores the experience
In a different form, beyond any meaning
We can assign to happiness. I have said before
That the past experience revived in the meaning
Is not the experience of one life only
But of many generations—not forgetting
Something that is probably quite ineffable:
The backward look behind the assurance
Of recorded history, the backward half-look
Over the shoulder, towards the primitive terror.
Now, we come to discover that the moments of agony
(Whether, or not, due to misunderstanding,
Having hoped for the wrong things or dreaded the wrong things,
Is not in question) are likewise permanent
With such permanence as time has. We appreciate this better
In the agony of others, nearly experienced,
Involving ourselves, than in our own.
For our own past is covered by the currents of action,
But the torment of others remains an experience
Unqualified, unworn by subsequent attrition.
People change, and smile: but the agony abides.
Time the destroyer is time the preserver,
Like the river with its cargo of dead negroes, cows and chicken coops,
The bitter apple, and the bite in the apple.
And the ragged rock in the restless waters,
Waves wash over it, fogs conceal it;
On a halcyon day it is merely a monument,
In navigable weather it is always a seamark
To lay a course by: but in the sombre season
Or the sudden fury, is what it always was.”

“The Dry Salvages“, The Four Quartets, TS Eliot

In times of great suffering, we are presented with great opportunities. We may choose to spread our agony through vengeance and hate or we may join with others who share in our pain to bring healing and justice. The legacy of September 11th means different things to different people. To some it is a great swell of patriotism, a reason to wage wars, or an excuse for wrongful actions. We are a traumatized society who cannot afford to let our trauma separate us from the rest of the world. We must share our sadness with victims of violence everywhere, from the Holocaust to Rwanda, from the Congo to Iran, from Cambodia to Colombia. We are all united by our suffering and from this we gain the strength to work together and let justice and democracy prevail.

This Fourth of July I had the extreme pleasure of going to the world premiere of Islam in America, the latest project of Dr. Akbar Ahmed and his wonderful team of motivated youngsters. The film takes a look at the various Muslim communities across America, from big cities in the East to small towns in the Midwest, and focuses heavily on the voices of these ordinary American Muslims. It is done in a very low-tech style that may not be for everyone, but certainly it helped capture a very down-to-earth and intimate feel.

My own feelings going into the film were mixed; I was excited by the mission of the project itself yet nervous that I would be assailed by stories of discrimination and victimization leaving me with little hope for the future. My fears were not eased by the opening, in which a stream of protesters shouted offensive epithets at participants in a Muslim parade. As a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (or WASP), I often cringe when I see my ethnoreligious kin demonstrate their own hate-fuelled ignorance. Even more embarassing was the scene in which a woman with unfortunate teeth started talking about the Somalian Muslims in her community going with “the American way”, as though the Muslim way and the American way were mutually exclusive lifestyles. I imagine this is how many Muslims, not just in America but across the globe, feel when the ugliest aspects of their community are put on display as though they were the only face of Islam.

As the film proceeded, I was pleasantly surprised and inspired by the positive stories of friendship and cooperation between non-Muslim and Muslim Americans. There was the story of a bishop and an imam in Las Vegas who find ways to work together and support each other in serving the local poor and underprivileged. There was also the story of a little town in Alabama, ironically named Arab and to be pronounced as Ay-rab, whom the team was expecting to react rather badly to Hailey dressed in hijab. Instead of what we might have expected (i.e. some barely comprehensible Deliverance-esque hill billy telling them he didn’t take kindly to their folk, which really should reveal a lot about my own prejudices) Hailey, Dr. Ahmed, and the team were greeted with genuine southern hospitality.

Islam in America touches on so many different layers of American and Islamic identity, and while we never quite come to a conclusion in reconciling the different characterizations of these social constructs we nonetheless conclude that they are varied and equally legitimate. It would be impossible to survey the full history of Muslims in America or even list all the different views Muslims have of their own American communities and how they relate to non-Muslims, but the most important feat of this film is that it broke the surface. And in breaking that surface, we are confronted with a challenge to look deeper into ourselves in order to better relate to those who we perceive as an other. What better way to engage the rest of the Muslim world than to take a critical look at our own Muslims, our own diversity and pluralism?

More than a nation of immigrants or (as some consistently claim) Christians, America is a nation of human beings. The American experience is the human experience: complex and often contradictory, full of noble ideals and actions and plenty of shameful ones too. But if nationalism is anything, it is an optimistic drive towards the better qualities of our human nature. We as Americans must accept our strengths and our weaknesses while continuously pushing toward a “more perfect union”.

For more information on the team, the documentary, and the project itself please visit Journey Into America.

Although I haven’t yet posted on the situation in Iran, I have been faithfully observing. Its absolutely thrilling and I am so proud of both the Iranian people for their dedication and to President Obama for keeping relatively quiet on the situation while still condemning the Iranian government. I don’t think its necessary for me to explain why its important that the US government observes quietly from a distance because history makes that very clear. I also don’t think I can say anything that hasn’t already been said about the implications for future relations or speculate on the inevitable (r)evolution. Rather, I’m much more interested in focusing on the nature of the protests and the rebellion in terms of civil society empowerment.

For the greater Middle East and elsewhere in the world, bloody revolutions and military coups that replace one tyrant with another only to have him ousted in yet another violent uprising are all too common. In the Cold War era, these cycles were encouraged through the various political alignments and the priority of oil. While oil is still a priority, global affairs have experienced a major shift in consciousness. After 9/11, the Huntington Clash of Civilizations theory was the closest and easiest explanation for the West and non-West alike to make sense of what had been happening since the end of the Cold War. However, the cracks in the theory appeared early on and with the many failures of the Bush administration it quickly lost credibility. There may not yet be a clear majority of theoretical approaches in the international community, but what should be clear is that we cannot divide the world along such imaginary and meaningless lines anymore. Especially when we, the US, have so many different interests in various region that don’t involve oil.

In the days of the Islamic Revolution, the US looked at Iran as a threat because they would not side with us over the Soviet Union. Iran became an unstable variable in our great Middle Eastern plan. Now, when we look at the civil unrest, we don’t see as much of the concern over strategic alignments anymore. We see a moderate and thoroughly modern population struggling against oppression and they are gaining support worldwide. Although Iran’s relationship with its Arab neighbors may be a troubled one, the prospect of this uprising should strike fear into the hearts of many Middle Eastern theocrats and autocrats. Its not US intervention they should fear when they crack down on dissidents in the name of “security”, its their own people.

The civilians of Iran have empowered themselves despite their government’s attempts to disempower them. Protests were banned, and before anyone could attempt to organize, spontaneous demonstrations of civil disobedience already began to take place. Although this lack of organization is detrimental to the long-term stamina of the protesters, the attempts of the authorities to crack down have not gone unnoticed. The bans, the arrests, the killings are occurrences we should be prepared to face, and will most likely continue to face, in this crisis. But in this instance, the fact that so many of these occurrences are flooding the airwaves and the internet and provoking global moral outrage is PROOF that nonviolent methods of resistance WORK.

If we want to see real change occur, not just in Iran, but anywhere, there are two responsibilities we must all accept: (1)those directly involved in the conflict must continue to resist nonviolently, and (2) those of us who are outside must recognize, validate, and legitimize this form of resistance. As I happen to fall into the latter category, I say to all my Iranian friends, colleagues, and readers that I am excited for you and watching such displays of passion and commitment make my idealistic youthfulness that much more pleasurable. To my non-Iranian American, Palestinian, Israeli, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, White, Black, South Asian, and Latino friends, colleagues, and readers: let us continue to watch, sympathize, empathize and SPEAK OUT for these people.

Obama’s speech in Cairo threw down the gauntlet for Israeli leaders to respond.  The New York Times observed that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech was as much done for the Israeli evening news as it was for the Obama administration.  I found it boring, infuriating, and tend to agree with Aliyana Traison of Haaretz that it was full of “vague validations” and “vows to break”. Netanyahu’s principles and conditions were presented in categorical, take-it-or-leave-it terms. He ignored the various Israeli-Palestinian negotiations over the past two decades, under three American presidents, which were designed to attempt to resolve precisely the vexed issues of recognition, demilitarisation, borders, Jerusalem and refugees. (The Economist)

Many look to Netanyahu’s use of the term “Palestinian state” as a sign of hope for an end to the occupation and the ground work for going through with a two-state solution. But I don’t see how any of that could be true. Yes, he used the word “state” but I couldn’t find anything to demonstrate his willingness to see a Palestinian state that corresponded with any of the major negotations that have taken place over the decades.

“‘Benjamin Netanyahu spoke about negotiations, but left us with nothing to negotiate as he systematically took nearly every permanent status issue off the table,’ Saeb Erekat, the Palestinian negotiator, said in a statement. ‘Nor did he accept a Palestinian state. Instead, he announced a series of conditions and qualifications that render a viable, independent and sovereign Palestinian state impossible.’ (Kershner)

For starters, Israeli settlements will not be frozen as Obama had declared should be done in Cairo.* Though Netanyahu pledged not to build new settlements or to appropriate more land; he did insist that “normal life” must continue in the existing settlements. Which of course is code for continued building there. (Economist) Famed Israeli author, and one of my personal favorites, Amos Oz describes the Israeli settlements as a fight over what exactly the Jewish civilization is.

” [If the settlers] succeed in their cause, they may drag both me and my children with them, to kill and to die in a perpetual and unnecessary war, or perhaps turn Israel into a monster like Belfast, Rhodesia, or South Africa. For this argument is not an intellectual exercise: it is a matter of life and death, pure and simple.” (In the Land of Israel)

Another key issue is the Palestinian refugee situation and the right of return. Netanyahu explicitly stated that the refugee problem must be resolved outside Israel’s borders and any demand to resettle refugees within Israel undermined Israel as a state for the Jewish people. (BBC) Certainly I don’t think it would be at all possible to guarantee every refugee a right to return, but there must be concessions on both sides to recognize the injustice committed against Palestinian refugees and a recognition of Israel as a Jewish state so that we may look to compensation and reconciliation for the refugees. Indeed the recognition of Israel’s Jewish character is important. Israelis already are in heated debates over what this Jewish character means, but there can be no denying that Israel has a right to exist and that it is Jewish.

Hands down, my favorite analysis of the speech coupled with some reccomendations for what to do next comes from the author I mentioned earlier, Aliyana Traison. Traison writes that in return for the Palestinian Authority recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, Israel must create a concrete plan of withdrawal from parts of the West Bank. She also added that if Palestine is to be demilitarized, “then Israel would have to compromise for denying a sovereign democracy the right of defense. Israel and Palestine must therefore sign a pact of non-aggression as a concession for a demilitarized state.”

Perhaps this speech has taken the entire negotiation process many steps back, or maybe it was Netanyahu’s election that did that. In any case, it is not hard to lose hope for a sustainable peace anytime soon. I grumbled as I felt myself growing more cynical after reading Eric Alterman’s piece on the Daily Beast.

“As difficult as it may appear to be to make peace with a corrupt and potentially powerless Palestinian Authority and a hostile Hamas, Israel’s other choices are actually worse; either to expel millions of Palestinians from their lands to preserve the state’s Jewish character or give up on democratic rule entirely, embracing a nightmare future much like that in South Africa under apartheid. Barack Obama offered Bibi Netanyahu an escape hatch, perhaps the last one Israel is likely to see while the conflict remains potentially solvable. Absent the pomp and circumstance, Netanyahu’s response could hardly have been clearer: ‘Thanks, but no thanks.’”

But in the midst of all this pessimism, I look at the work of Just Vision and all the various people they have encountered and I become the wide eyed idealist youth again. Israelis and Palestinians who have lost homes, lives, daughters, sons, been imprisoned, been beaten down yet still continue to struggle for peace by nonviolence and reconciliation. They’re just ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances that many of us might let corrupt our sense of humanity and compassion, and yet they are not. So I encourage you, my readers, whenever you comes across a piece of news that makes you think peace will never happen because nobody is willing to work for it visit Just Vision’s website and read any of the interviews they have done with these everyday heroes.**

Notes and Sources

*At this point I want to say that the American policy has been fairly consistent in opposing at least the expansion of the settlements. So this cannot be said to be an “Obama thing”

**That might have been uncomfortably cheesy, but hopefully you’ll check out Just Vision despite my word-fail

1. Aliyana Traison, “Demilitarized Palestine? Just sign this non-aggression pact first“, Haaretz
2. The Economist, “Israel and Palestine: A change of heart?“
3. Isabel Kershner, “Netanyahu Backs Palestinian State, With Caveats“, New York Times
4. Amos Oz, In the Land of Israel, p.127
5. BBC News, Israel sets terms for Palestinian state
6. Eric Alterman, “BiBi’s Bait-and-Switch“, The Daily Beast

Cairo is an ancient city that has become a modern urban hub of the Arab world. It is the primary place to produce Arabic pop music, the favored study abroad location for Americans looking to study the Arab world, and the birth place of Pan Arabism and the Muslim Brotherhood. Ponder all those contradictions for a moment, and you’ll understand just how un-monolithic Egyptian and Arab society really is. This week, Cairo was also the chosen site for President Obama to deliver what he promised would be a historic speech to the Muslim world. Historic it may very well have been, but it was not without controversy.

The Hype and The Reactions

Some, including author Reza Aslan, decried Obama’s choice of Egypt for the apparent message it would send about American complacency towards their brutal government then later expressed excitement over his talk of the Arab-Israeli conflict. In the aftermath, the Huffington Post’s Peter Daou also expressed disappointment with regards to Obama’s talk of human rights and women’s rights. Michael Hirsh of Newsweek praised Obama’s fine words, but fears that they will remain just words. International reaction has mixed, as many see hope for better policies and others have been jaded by American promises of change. My former professor and colleagues over at Team Akbar Ahmed were genuinely excited by Obama’s embrace of the concept of a Dialogue of Civilizations. Its something Dr. Ahmed and others have been supporting fervently for years. Dr. Ahmed asserts that the speech is evidence that America is finally engaging in dialogue. Frankie Martin, my friend and Ibn Khaldun Research Fellow, writes in the Huffington Post that of course, a dialogue about dialogue isn’t enough.

“Dialogue of Civilizations” is not meant to be a “kumbaya” philosophy for the President, but a real strategy to combat anti-Americanism and win allies. The President’s use of the phrase should be followed by action including reform of U.S. visa policy to bring more people from Muslim countries to the United States, programs to encourage American students to study abroad, and more vigorous public diplomacy to bring our diplomats out of their embassy fortresses and interact with Muslims where they live.

UPDATE: Here are two of the aforementioned authors discussing the speech with Chris Matthews on Hardball.

Choice Moments

I absolutely loved the speech. I hate that I love it, because it makes me look like an eager to be pleased Obamania victim. I assure you, my love of the speech has nothing to do with the man who actually delivered it, but of course I greatly commend him for it. So here are a few of my favorite excerpts.

“Tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations.”

“So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.”

“The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words – within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: ‘Out of many, one.’”

“Six million Jews were killed [in the Holocaust]- more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, it is ignorant, and it is hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction – or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews – is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve. On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. And America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.”

“The Holy Koran tells us, ‘O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.’

The Talmud tells us: ‘The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace.’

The Holy Bible tells us, ‘Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.’”

Additionally, I also loved the entire portion of the speech where he praised the scientific and cultural achievements of the Arab and Islamic world. That acknowledgement I think goes really far, especially since it seemed our last administration was much more impressed their oil wealth.

Time To Get To Work

I will remain a skeptic about the potential of any American president to make significant strides in proving good will through action and not just words. I think our presidents have shown they can do a lot more good when they’ve left office than when they’re in it. My hope is less that Obama will make good on his speech, but that all Americans will make good on his speech. I want the American people to feel empowered to create better relations, to demand better relations, to demand the right kind of action from our government and non-government organizations.

And to be a shameless plugger of my own contacts and colleagues in the field, I want the American people to check out Dr. Ahmed and his team and the media organization that provides proof that there are committed nonviolent peacebuilders in Israel-Palestine, Just Vision. You should absolutely become a fan of them on Facebook.